Friday, 30 September 2016

I do enjoy a bit of drama and Milo-Gate hasn't let me down, I've spent more time than usual catching up with the latest discussions and podcasts, reading comments threads and various articles. Back in April when Milo Yiannopoulos began flirting with the Alt-Right I wrote an article in which I expressed my dismay that a flamboyant gay Jew should be courting a movement which would see him deported to Israel, but if he was willing to help us achieve that goal then, hey, great!. So here we are half a year later, it seems like as good a time as any to assess how useful Milo has been to the cause of racial Nationalism.

Sunday, 25 September 2016

In David Lean's great wartime movie 'Bridge over the river Kwai' the British prisoners of war are set to work building a bridge for the Japanese, Colonel Nichols (Alec Guinness) becomes obsessed with using the construction of the bridge as a means by which his men's discipline can be held together and, more importantly, to prove to the Japanese that the British army are capable of building a better bridge than they. Nichols' monomania makes his men's lives more miserable than the Japanese ever did, but eventually the bridge is finished and Nichols stands proudly gazing upon it, adoring it, it's surely the best bridge in all of Asia, and the British army built it. Nichols finally understands his monumental folly when he notices allied soldiers desperately trying to destroy his bridge and worse, the chunting of a Japanese train carrying thousands of troops and tonnes of armaments and supplies. Nichols became so blinded by his own ego and chauvinism that he forgot his bridge was a huge benefit to his enemy's war effort, before dying, taking his bridge with him, the heartbroken Nichols gasps ''What have I done?''.

Similarly, Polly Toynbee wrote an article in The Guardian recently which she called:

Wednesday, 21 September 2016

A while back I made post called 'Five Shades Of Liberal' in which I attempted to dissect the mentality of five random liberals on Twitter. Some comments under the post suggested the subject of debating leftists and liberals should become more of a blog focus, I remembered that the other other day when I happened to run into a Marxist teacher on a ''RefugeesWelcome'' trend after they protested in London demanding we take in more! Muslims.

One of the points I hammer relentlessly on this blog is that the left are not revolutionaries but rather an inherent part of the system, they are not outside it, they are of it and everything they do and everything they endorse further empowers the real power, which is High Finance. So, the test subject here, despite his youthful appearance, is not a student but a teacher, as you can see from his profile he hits all of the right beats and ticks all of the right boxes, he's your typical middle class left wing Twat.

Saturday, 17 September 2016

Most readers of this blog will be familiar with the left's quite brilliant use of semantics and sophistry, often completely ignoring the facts and data in favour of clever wordplay. Examples include erroneously appropriating virtuous sounding words like "liberal" and "progressive" for themselves and branding their opponents as suffering from various "isms" and "phobias" that are suggestive of mental illness. One of the most pernicious examples of the left's cunning use of language is their use of the word “pseudo" as a prefix to any academic work or idea that contradicts their world view. In particular, "pseudo-science" and "pseudo-intellectual". The Oxford English dictionary defines Pseudo as:

1. Not genuine, a sham.

2. Informal, pretentious or insincere.

Therefore, by the mere application of the prefix "pseudo", the left believe that they can instantly discredit anything they disagree without engaging in any discussion of the substantive issues. As always, they adopt this dishonest approach because the facts are not on their side. It is enough to cause one to suspect that their movement might be led by people with unusually high levels of verbal intelligence. However, facts will beat sophistry every time.

The left frequently use the term "pseudo-science" to dismiss out of hand any scientific evidence relating to racial differences between human populations. They will haughtily dismiss all of the data as irrelevant ab initio without even taking the time or trouble to address it merits. However, it is the left's shibboleth of universal human equality that is without scientific foundation. The notion of human racial equality does not come from hard science. It is a sociological and anthropological theory that gained traction for political reasons shortly after World War II. In 1948 the United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) issued a proposal calling for the"general adoption of a programme of dissemination of scientific facts designed to bring about the disappearance of that which is commonly called race prejudice" They knew the answer they wanted before they even asked the question. This was not science. It was an exercise in propaganda.

UNESCO issued no less than four statements on race between 1950 and 1967, drafted by such luminaries as (((Morris Ginsbeg))), (((Claude Levi Strauss))). The 1950 statement was drafted by sociologists and anthropologists and included some truly startling, and entirely unsubstantiated, claims such as:

"Given similar degrees of cultural opportunity to realise their potentialities, the average achievement of the members of each ethnic group is about the same".

The 1950 statement caused such an outcry among biologists and geneticists, who had not been invited to contribute to it rendering it scientifically invalid, that a revised statement was issued in 1951 which was far more reasonable in tone.

"Most anthropologists do not include mental characteristics in their classification of human races. "When intelligence tests, even non-verbal, are made on a group of non-literate people, their scores are usually lower than those of more civilized people." However, overall, available scientific knowledge provides no basis for believing that the groups of mankind differ in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development."

i.e. there are measurable differences in intellectual capacity between the races but that, at that point in time, they were unable to unequivocally state that these differences were due to genes rather than some other factor such as culture or education.

Since the end of World War II the unsubstantiated theories of (((Franz Boas))), that all differences between human populations are due to culture, and that no culture is better than any other, have become the only acceptable opinion to express in any western University. The chilling effect of this brutally enforced false consensus is that scientific discussion of racial differences has become a potentially career ending taboo in academic circles. Most biologists and geneticists who value their livelihood avoid mentioning the word race altogether preferring to talk of "population groups" and "genetic ancestry makers" but it amounts to the same thing. Any scientific data, however valid, which departs from this orthodoxy, is branded "pseudo-science" negating any need to engage with it on its merits. This is the antithesis of the scientific method.

Of course, the reason why establishment left is unable to discuss race in a fact based and scholarly manner is because there is no hard data which supports their dogma of universal racial equality. All they have to offer is well meaning platitudes and a variety of canards, red herrings and straw men which are embarrassingly easy to rebut.

1. "Most scientists agree that there is no such thing as race". Yes. They avoid the word race and use less incendiary terminology like population groups instead, but it means the same thing.

2. "There is greater variation among the members of each race than between the races". This is true, but it is utterly meaningless. The fact that a white Olympic sprinter can run faster than an obese black asthmatic or that a black university professor is more intelligent than a white retard does nothing to change the different averages of each group. These outliers are already included within those averages.

3. "All human beings share more than 99% of their genes". This is true but, again, it is totally meaningless. We also share 98% of our genes with chimpanzees and 60% of our genes with chickens. Tiny differences in genetic code can create huge differences in outcome.

4. "Black people have higher rates of criminality and lower educational attainment due to their culture/environment". This has been disproved by countless twin adoption studies, but it is irrelevant in any event because whether their deficiencies a due to genetics or culture, or a combination of the two, the fact is that they exist.

5. "No race is superior to any other". A classic straw man. Few people claim that one race is superior to another overall. Each race is adapted to the environment in which it evolved. Each race is better at some things and worse at others. Difference does not imply overall superiority.

6. "Race is only skin colour". See the numbered points below.

Racial egalitarianism and blank slate theory are virtually fact free. They are an exercise in obfuscation and whataboutery. They themselves are examples of pseudoscience on a par with astrology and creationism. All the racial egalitarians have is, "Everyone is the same because we say they are. Dissent against this point of view will not be tolerated". By contrast, the hard data supporting biological racial differences is voluminous and overwhelming. Examples include:-

1. Forensic scientists can discover a person’s race from their skeletal remains with over 80% accuracy and from their DNA with over 99% accuracy.

2. Every IQ test and public examination ever conducted in any country show the same stratification of the races.

3. Black women have narrower hips as black babies are born with smaller heads/brains.

4. Every finalist the Olympic men's 100 meters since 1980 has been of West African ancestry.

5. Certain parasites can live on some races but not on others.

6. Transplanted organs from member of another race are far more likely to be rejected by the recipient.

7. Certain diseases only affect, or are more prevalent in, certain races.

8. The races have diffrent brain sizes.

I could go on all day, but I'm sure you get the point. This will be familiar stuff to most of the Morgoth's Review regulars, but this article from Radix Journal sets out a useful summary for newcomers to the topic.

It is nothing short of astonishing that the entire academic establishment of the west should reject all of this hard data as "pseudo-science" when they cannot disprove any of it, but they base the whole of the modern orthodoxy on race upon UNESCO propaganda and the works of Franz Boas which have already been comprehensively rebutted.

This would not be such an important issue if it was just a matter of crusty old professors talking among themselves, but the entirety of western government policy is based upon this baloney. Countless billions have been wasted, and continue to be wasted, on the impossible task of trying to make black and brown life outcomes the same as white life outcomes. We could be on Mars by now if the money we had wasted on this nonsense had been more productively spent.

A close cousin to pseudo-science is "pseudo-intellectual" which the left and the academic establishment, which are in practical terms the same thing, use to describe any thinker who they disagree with but are unable to rebut. It is frequently used in relation to highly intelligent race dissidents such as Jared Taylor and Richard Spencer. No need to deal with their substantive positions, just call them "pseudo" and hope they go away.

Wednesday, 14 September 2016

My old friend and mentor from the Daily Telegraph comments section, Guessed Worker, has an absolutely blistering article up at Majority Rights so I thought I'd re-post it here too.

Trump in the USA, Hofer in Austria, the rise of the AfD in Germany and that of the Swedish Democrats, Le Pen and Wilders both leading in the polls, the Brexit triumph in Britain, and talk of Nexit and Frexit on the horizon … all across the West these are days of hope, even expectation if one is a patriot, and of definite glimmers of opportunity if one is a nationalist.The worldly power of the liberal elites, of the political internationalists, and of the corporate players might not be waning just yet. They are, for the greater part, still in government or forming government agenda across the West. They still populate the global fora. They still have the media class to sell their economic and social values, and shape the public perception of any opposition. But despite all this they don’t have quite the control they once did over public discourse and, increasingly, over the electoral process. From the ever-widening political margins they are under sustained and successful ideological attack. Where this attack comes from the anti-austerity left, with its Achilles heel of anti-racism and open borders, it has proved possible for the Establishment to absorb it. But where it comes from the populist right, with its anti-Islam and anti-immigration elements, that’s just not possible. People start thinking the unthinkable, namely that these elites, who act like gods and dispose of the European life as they please, are nothing better than base criminals and deserve only our total contempt and, in the worst cases, perhaps a prison cell.

Friday, 9 September 2016

On the day Black Lives Matter UK invaded Heathrow airport and disrupted the holiday schedule of thousands of white families, the London Evening Standard carried a video taken from CCTV footage of a white woman being dragged off her feet by her neck and violently mugged by two blacks, having a ring yanked from her finger. As the Lefties and black activists crowed on Twitter about the havoc they had caused at Heathrow, that white woman was sitting with a police medic, in shock and traumatized, calling her family to explain she'd been mugged. The standard argument of the 'Right' to blacks agitating against 'police brutality' is to point out that blacks commit more crime and therefore come into contact more frequently with the police, therefore they're more likely to die in police custody or while resisting arrest. And this is perfectly true, it's also true that a white man carrying a car full of heroine and facing 15 years in jail will offer less resistance to the police than a black who's just robbed a diet coke from a store.

Sunday, 4 September 2016

The second entry into my series of posts explaining why I hold the views I do, part one can be read here.

In the early 2000's while in my early 20's I left the north of England and went into Europe backpacking, I ended up remaining in Europe for over a decade, primarily living and working in the Benelux countries. Like many young people who set off for Europe I had a set of preconceived ideas as to how various European countries would be, not just ethnically, but culturally, the general 'feel' of being in France would be different to Holland or Germany and, of course, Britain. These naive assumptions were swiftly dispelled upon actually entering France, the first country I traveled to. I had never before seen so many non-White people in one place, it simply wasn't very 'French'. The fast-food chains and fashions of Britain were all here too, all that really had changed since passing through London was the language. I became still more disillusioned when traveling further, from Paris it's a mere few hours aboard a train then you're in another country, another capital city. But it didn't really matter, whether it was Brussels or Amsterdam, it would always be remarkably similar. It would always be 30-40% non-White and the Global brands would always dominate the streets along with blacks and Muslims.

Thursday, 1 September 2016

The last time I paid any attention to Ben Shapiro he was on the losing end of the Breitbart civil war, Shapiro has long fancied himself as the nemesis of Donald Trump and the Alt-Right, and that was the cause of the Breitbart crisis. Needless to say, it hasn't been a very good year for Ben and I'd assumed he was destined to feature only as a ''Conservative expert'' on Fox News or whatever slot his fellow Jews could wrangle for him, but no, I was wrong... The recent surge of interest in the Alt-Right meant that I spent more time than usual searching that term on You Tube to keep track of what the latest news was, however, because Ben Shapiro spends an extraordinary amount of time attacking the Alt-Right, You Tube was suggesting his material as videos I'd be interested in. I swiftly noticed that there was a marked difference in tone and style, Ben was forever 'destroying' somebody or 'massacring' or 'slaughtering' them. Shapiro himself has adopted the air of an angry rebel, he's frequently unshaven and has a general attitude of being a rogue against the system. What the hell is going on? Is Ben Shapiro a 'Shitlord' now?.